B. Oyo1, G. Maiga2 and P. B. Muyinda2 Online Courseware Development in Public Universities in Uganda: The Precepts of Active, Passive and Exclusive Participation B. Oyo1, G. Maiga2 and P. B. Muyinda2 1Gulu University 2Makerere University 8th November 2018 1

Outline Introduction Problem Objectives Conceptual Framework Methodology Results and Discussion Conclusion

Definition Reflection Introduction Courseware development is the authorship of interactive content and activities that engage learners to practice and extend their knowledge and skills. Reflection Online courseware development is viewed as a basic requirement for the 21st century universities. The evidence for competitive online courseware development in developing countries is lacking. Engagement in online content development is more of an institutional culture than a technology issue.

The Problem Positive trends in the context of Uganda Challenges Existence of LMSs in most universities Improving technical competency Existence of pool of staff trained in courseware development Improving access to internet on university campus Challenges Volume and quality of courseware is low Online course presence is low and skewed to engineering and related disciplines. Staff training in content development does not match availability of OCW LMSs do not have content and hence are a wastage of investment.

Objective Investigate the state of online courseware development in Uganda and develop strategies for improvement Inclusiveness versus exclusiveness Activeness versus persiveness

Conceptual Framework Institutional Initiatives Individual Initiatives Availability of LMS Training on use of LMS Training on use of authoring tools Ensuring Internet access Technical support Guiding policy Access to computers Individual Initiatives Hosting course(s) on the institutional LMS Using authoring tools Seeking support/training Adhering to policy guidelines Logical structure of inquiry

Conceptual Framework (Cont.)

Location, population and sample Methodology Location, population and sample Six public universities with at least 5 years existence Estimated population of academic staff - 4221 351 academic staff sampled and 120 valid responses returned 40% from Gulu University 18% from Kyambogo University 11% from MUBS 11% from Busitema University 10% from Makerere University Validity and Reliability Expert review of the questionnaire Pilot test yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.89 on section of online courseware development

Results and Discussion Inclusive versus Exclusive Contexts Institutional Initiatives Inclusive Contexts Exclusive Contexts Online hosting of LMS 52% confirmed 48% not aware Training on LMS 43% trained 57% not trained Training on authoring tools 60% trained 40% not trained On campus internet access 77% had access 23% could not access Off campus internet provision 100% confirmed non provision Technical support 46% were supported 54% not sure of its provision Existence of supporting policy 20% aware 80% not aware Provision of computers 21% accessed 89% could not access a university PC/laptop

Results and Discussion Active versus Passive Participation Individual Initiatives Activeness Passiveness Use of Institutional LMS (n=62) 53% had hosted a course on institutional LMS 47% were trained but never hosted a course Use of authoring tools (n=72) 54% used at least on authoring tool 46% never used any authoring tool Seeking technical support (n=55) 42% sought support 48% never sought any support Adhering to policy guidelines (n=24) 100% not concerned about policy guidelines

Results and Discussion Strategies for Improvement

Conclusion Courseware development is a double responsibility of institutions and staff. Exclusion is a capacity challenge that is tolerable but passiveness is a negligence issue that can be avoided by the respective university. Passiveness is more prominent in Arts and Humanities fields than in the Engineering and Science fields. Proposed strategies need to be explored further and validated.

Thank You Comments/Qns are welcome 13